Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Will: Daughter Excluded from Property for Marrying Outside Community

New Delhi: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld a father’s will, ruling that his daughter Shaila Joseph is not entitled to any share of his property. The court emphasized that when a will is clear, the testator’s wishes are supreme and cannot be overridden.

Background of the Case

The father, N.S. Shridharan, had excluded Shaila from his estate among his nine children because she had married outside their community. Earlier, both the trial court and the High Court had ordered the property to be equally divided among all nine children, questioning the validity of the will. The Supreme Court has now reversed those rulings.

Supreme Court Verdict

A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddeen Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran stated, “No interference is permissible with a will that has been clearly established. The decrees and decisions of the trial and High Courts are hereby set aside. The petitioner (Shaila) has no claim to the property, which is rightly allotted to other siblings as per the will.”

Shaila’s lawyer, P.B. Krishnan, argued that his client was entitled to 1/9th share, a minor portion of the estate. However, the bench clarified that questions of equality do not apply in matters of wills, and the distribution is entirely at the discretion of the testator.

Testator’s Wishes are Paramount

The bench further elaborated, “We are not addressing issues of equality. The intention of the person making the will is supreme. No deviation or override of a valid will is permissible. The testator’s final wishes cannot be altered by the court or anyone else.”

No ‘Reasonableness Rule’ in Wills

The court also clarified that the principle of “reasonableness” does not apply to wills. Individuals have full rights to distribute their property according to their wishes. Only in cases where all heirs are excluded might courts consider reasonableness—but that is not applicable here.

By accepting the appeals of the other siblings, the Supreme Court rejected Shaila’s claim for equal distribution of the property.